Table Of ContentZootaxa 1654: 41–54 (2007) ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition)
www.mapress.com/zootaxa/ ZOOTAXA
Copyright © 2007 · Magnolia Press ISSN1175-5334(online edition)
Formal taxonomy of species C of the Anopheles minimus sibling species complex
(Diptera: Culicidae)
RALPH E. HARBACH1, CLAIRE GARROS2,3, NGUYEN DUC MANH4 & SYLVIE MANGUIN2
1Department of Entomology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K.
2Institut de Recherche pour le Développement, UMR22 Biologie et Gestion des Populations, Campus de Baillarguet, CS30016, Mont-
ferrier sur Lez 34988, France
3Present address: University of California, Irvine, College of Health Sciences, Program in Public Health, 3501 Hewitt Hall, Irvine, CA
92697-4050
4Department of Molecular Biology, National Institute of Malariology, Parasitology and Entomology, Luong Thé Vinh Street, BC
10.200 Tu Liem, Hanoi, Vietnam
Abstract
The nomenclatural identity of species C of the Anopheles minimus complex is resolved by excluding the available junior
synonyms of the nominotypical member of the complex and naming it An. harrisoni Harbach & Manguin, sp. n.Anoph-
eles formosaensis I Tsuzuki, An. christophersi Theobald and An. christophersi var. alboapicalis Theobald are retained as
junior synonyms of An. minimus Theobald based on the provenance of type specimens in geographical areas where An.
harrisoni is not known to occur. A lectotype is designated for An. vincenti Laveran, which thus becomes the senior name
of the specific entity known as An. jeyporiensis James. Molecular data that diagnose An. harrisoni are reviewed and the
holotype female is contrasted with the neotype series of An. minimus. Available information on the bionomics and distri-
bution of the new species is included.
Key words: Mosquito, minimus C, Minimus Complex, Anopheles harrisoni, new species
Introduction
Anopheles minimus Theobald is the nominotypical member of a sibling species complex (Minimus Complex)
of malaria vectors in the Oriental Region. The taxonomic history of the complex was reviewed by Chen et al.
(2002) and Harbach et al. (2006). As currently defined, the complex includes three genetic species of the Min-
imus Subgroup within the Funestus Group (Garros et al., 2005b) that are informally denoted in literature as
species A, C and E (Harbach, 2004; Somboon et al., 2001). Species A is widespread in the Oriental Region,
species C has a disjunctive distribution in Southeast Asia, and species E is known only from Ishigaki Island of
the Ryukyu Archipelago, Japan (Somboon et al., 2001, 2005a).
Anopheles minimus was named and described by Theobald (1901) from a single female that became non-
extant after 1907 (Harrison, 1980). To fix the identity of this species and provide a foundation for further tax-
onomic studies of the Minimus Complex, Harbach et al. (2006) selected a neotype from specimens collected
near the original type locality in Hong Kong. Sequences for the D3 domain of the 28S locus of ribosomal
DNA (rDNA) and the cytochrome oxidase subunit II locus (COII) of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) obtained
from a hindleg of the neotype confirmed its identity as species A. Consequently, An. minimus species A is An.
minimus s.s.
Anopheles minimus and species C are partially, albeit dubiously, distinguished by the presence of a
humeral pale spot (HP) on the wings. Green et al. (1990) found that this spot was present in 78% of species C
Accepted by G. Courtney: 13 Nov. 2007; published: 5 Dec. 2007 41
whereas it was present in only 5% of An. minimus (as species A) females from Kanchanaburi Province in
western Thailand. Similarly, Sharpe (1997) recorded the presence of a HP spot in 63% of species C as
opposed to 9% of An. minimus (as species A) collected at the same locality (Ban Phu Rat) visited by Green et
al. (1990). Chen et al. (2002) noted the presence of this spot in a comparable percentage of An. minimus
females (7.3%, as species A) from southern China, but it was present in significantly fewer specimens of spe-
cies C females (15.6%).Van Bortel et al. (1999) observed an even higher degree of similarity between the two
species in northern Vietnam where 91.8% of species C (as form II) and 99% of An. minimus (as form I) lacked
HP spots. Finally, Sungvornyothin et al. (2006a) provided similar data on the occurrence of HP spots in popu-
lations of An. minimus (as species A) and species C from sites in Kanchanaburi and Tak provinces in western
Thailand. From these studies, it is obvious that the presence or absence of HP spots cannot be used as a diag-
nostic character to identify or distinguish the two species with any degree of confidence. Van Bortel et al.
(1999), Chen et al. (2002) and Sungvornyothin et al. (2006a) also examined the presence/absence of a presec-
tor pale spot (PSP) on the wings of males and females and showed that this character is even less reliable for
distinguishing the two species. To date (see below), no morphological characters have been found in any life
stage to distinguish the two species.
Garros et al. (2005b) and Chen et al. (2006) regarded An. fluviatilis species S of northern India as a syn-
onym of An. minimus species C based on the homology of the D3 region of 28S rDNA, which extended the
distribution of the latter species into India. More recently, however, the occurrence of An. minimus C in India
was refuted by Singh et al. (2006) who showed that An. fluviatilis S is distinct from An. minimus C based on
appreciable differences in the sequences of the second internal transcribed spacer (ITS2) locus and D2-D3
domain of 28S rDNA. Singh et al. (2006) also documented the presence of species C in central Myanmar.
Harbach (2004) pointed out that little progress has been made in giving formal names to members of sib-
ling species complexes in cases where the availability of junior synonyms of the nominotypical species must
be considered. This is undoubtedly the principal reason why species C of the Minimus Complex has not been
given a formal name. The process of determining whether an available name may apply to a cryptic species is
complicated by the lack of diagnostic features and DNA sequence data for type specimens.
The names of four nominal species (one with an unjustified replacement name, see Harbach et al., 2006)
are currently regarded as junior synonyms of An. minimus. Three of these names undoubtedly denote the same
specific entity as the neotype of An. minimus from Hong Kong. These include An. formosaensis I Tsuzuki, An.
christophersi Theobald and An. christophersi var. alboapicalis Theobald. Tsuzuki (1902) described An. for-
mosaensis I from adult mosquitoes collected at an undisclosed location on the island of Taiwan, and An. chris-
tophersi and the variety alboapicalis were described by Theobald (1902 and 1910, respectively) from
specimens collected at localities in the Duars region of western Assam, India. Molecular data show that spe-
cies C does not extend as far eastward and westward as An. minimus (see above), and only An. minimus occurs
in Taiwan (Chen et al., 2002; Somboon et al., 2005b) and Assam State of India (Prakash et al., 2006; Singh et
al., 2006). Unfortunately, the synonymy of An. vincenti Laveran with An. minimus is not so certain. The syn-
type specimens (adults) of An. vincenti were collected at Van Linh in the former French protectorate of Tonkin
(Laveran, 1901), which in 1946 formed the northern part of Vietnam bordering on China and is now a Com-
mune in Chi Lang District, Lang Son Province of Vietnam. Electrophoretic studies of the octanol dehydroge-
nase (Odh) enzyme locus and multiplex PCR of ITS2 rDNA indicate that An. minimus and species C both
occur at this locality (Nguyen Duc Manh, unpublished).
The type series of An. vincenti consists of five females mounted in balsam on a single microscope slide
(fig. 1). We examined the syntypes of An. vincenti and agree with Reid (1947) and Harrison (1980) that two of
the five females are specimens of An. jeyporiensis James. The other three specimens may be either An. mini-
mus or species C. With one possible exception, HP and PSP spots are absent from the wings of these speci-
mens. The possible exception is the questionable presence of faint or partial HP and PSP spots on the left wing
of one female. Based on the observations of Van Bortel et al. (1999) (see above), there is a slightly greater
42 · Zootaxa 1654 © 2007 Magnolia Press HARBACH ET AL.
likelihood (7.2%) that the three females are specimens of An. minimus, but whether one or two or all three
specimens are conspecific with An. minimus or species C is unanswerable. As indicated above, adults of these
species are virtually indistinguishable in northern Vietnam, and molecular methods are unlikely to be useful in
resolving their identity because they are mounted in balsam. To resolve this dilemma, the specimen of An. jey-
poriensis located to the lower right of the other specimens on the microscope slide (fig. 1) is hereby desig-
nated the lectotype of An. vincenti to unambiguously fix the identity of this nominal species (see figure legend
for specific details). As a consequence of this action, An. vincenti Laveran, 1901 has priority over An. jey-
poriensis James, 1902 as the name of the species. Because use of the older synonym will cause taxonomic
instability and confusion, we will present a case to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
for maintaining the established usage of An. jeyporiensis. Until the case has been considered, the junior name
of An. jeyporiensis should continue to be used as the valid name of the taxon (Article 23.9.3, ICZN, 1999).
The purpose of this paper is to formally name species C of the Minimus Complex and provide information
for its identification that will foster further study of its biology in relation to malaria transmission. Species E
will be formally named at a later date (P. Somboon, personal communication).
FIGURE 1. The microscope slide bearing the syntypes of Anopheles vincenti Laveran. The two specimens indicated by
arrows are females of An. jeyporiensis James; the other three specimens are females of the Minimus Complex that cannot
be identified as either An. minimus Theobald or species C of the complex, both of which occur at the type locality of An.
vincenti. The specimen of An. jeyporiensis located at lower right is designated the lectotype of An. vincenti (type locality:
Van Linh Commune, Chi Lang District, Lang Son Province, Vietnam; depository: Institut Pasteur, Paris [PIP]).
Material and methods
This study is based on specimens of species C collected in sympatry with An. minimus in the village of Khoi,
Hoa Binh Province, northern Vietnam (Type series; table 3).
Morphology. The progeny of five wild-caught females were individually reared to provide adults with
associated larval and pupal exuviae. Three broods of An. minimus and two of species C were identified by
electrophoresis of the octanol dehydrogenase (Odh)enzyme locus (Green et al., 1990; Van Bortel et al., 1999)
and PCR-RFLP of ITS2 (Van Bortel et al., 2000). Observations of adults were made under simulated natural
light. Larval and pupal chaetotaxy were studied using differential interference contrast microscopy. The mor-
phological terminology follows Harbach & Knight (1980, 1982). The specimens are deposited in The Natural
History Museum (BMNH), London.
FORMAL TAXONOMY OF ANOPHELES MINIMUS Zootaxa 1654 © 2007 Magnolia Press · 43
DNA sequences. Sequences for the ITS2, D3, COI and COII of An. minimus C collected in the village of
Khoi (not included in Type series) were published by Garros et al. (2005a,b). Sequences for the cytochrome b
(Cyt-b) locus of mtDNA are included here to complete the dataset. DNA was extracted from individual speci-
mens stored at –80°C or dried over silica gel following the protocol of Linton et al. (2001). The PCR and
cycling conditions of Dusfour et al. (2004) were used for the amplification of Cyt-b. The six sequences (three
per species) for the Cyt-b locus generated in this study are available in GenBank under accession numbers
EU071692–EU071694 (An. minimus) and EU071695–EU071697 (An. minimus C).
Taxonomy
Anopheles (Cellia)harrisoni Harbach & Manguin, sp. n.
Anopheles minimus species C of Green et al., 1990 (enzyme electrophoresis, morphology); Baimai et al.,
1996 (mitotic karyotype); Sucharit & Komalamisra, 1997 (RAPD-PCR identification); Sharpe et al.,
1999 (D3 rDNA, ASA and SSCP identification); Sharpe et al., 2000 (COII mtDNA, ITS2 rDNA, D3
rDNA, phylogenetic relationships); Van Bortel et al., 2000 (ITS2 rDNA, RFLP-PCR assay); Kengne et
al., 2001 (RAPD-PCR, SCAR-PCR multiplex assay); Somboon et al., 2001 (D3 rDNA); Chen et al.,
2002 (D3 rDNA, morphology, distribution); Choochote et al., 2002 (crossmating with An. minimus);
Rwegoshora et al., 2002 (adult bionomics); Zhou et al., 2002a (ITS2 rDNA, phylogenetic relation-
ships); Zhou et al., 2002b (COII mtDNA, phylogenetic relationships); Chen et al., 2003 (COII mtDNA,
D3 rDNA, phylogenetic relationships); Phuc et al., 2003 (ITS2 rDNA, multiplex assay); Van Bortel et
al., 2003 (Odh locus, population genetics); Garros et al., 2004a (D3 rDNA, ITS2 rDNA, RFLP-PCR
assay); Garros et al., 2004b (ITS2 rDNA, allele specific multiplex assay); Garros et al., 2005a (COII
mtDNA, D3 rDNA, morphology, phylogenetic relationships); Garros et al., 2005b (COI mtDNA, ITS2
rDNA, D3 rDNA, phylogenetic relationships); Trung et al., 2004 (trophic behaviour); Van Bortel et al.,
2004 (trophic behaviour); Kengluecha et al., 2005 (larval bionomics); Somboon et al., 2005a (cross-
mating with An. minimus E); Trung et al., 2005 (trophic behaviour); Harbach et al., 2006 (taxonomy);
Garros et al., 2006 (general review); Potikasikorn et al., 2006 (insecticide resistance); Singh et al., 2006
(ITS2 rDNA, D2-D3 rDNA); Sungvornyothin et al., 2006a (morphology); Sungvornyothin et al., 2006b
(bionomics) .
Anopheles minimus form II of Van Bortel et al., 1999 (Odh locus).
Diagnosis. Sequences for the ITS2 and the D3 domain of the 28S rDNA and Cyt-b, COI and COII of
mtDNA for An. harrisoni and other members of the Minimus Complex exhibit little intraspecific variation
and sufficient interspecific variation to be diagnostic of the species (figs 2–6).
Comparative studies of the adult, larval and pupal stages of An. minimus and An. harrisoni (as An. mini-
mus species A and C, respectively) from the type locality of the latter species (see Type series) were con-
ducted using specimens from progeny broods identified by enzyme electrophoresis and PCR-RFLP (see
Materials and methods). Attempts were made to find morphological characters in the various life stages that
might differentiate the two species. Study of adult females included the use of scanning electron microscopy
to examine the cibarial armature. Study of the larval and pupal stages involved systematic observations of all
elements of chaetotaxy. The results of these studies indicated that An. minimus and An. harrisoni are essen-
tially isomorphic in all life stages (also see Garros et al., 2005b). Since no morphological characters were
found that would consistently and reliably distinguish these species, studies of their ecology and behaviour
must relay on genetic and molecular methods of identification.
44 · Zootaxa 1654 © 2007 Magnolia Press HARBACH ET AL.
Molecular characterization. Three PCR-based assays have been developed that distinguish An. harri-
soni from An. minimus and three related species (An. aconitus Dönitz,An. pampanai Büttiker,An.varuna Iyen-
gar): SSCP-PCR of D3 for identifying four of the five species (Sharpe et al., 1999); RFLP-PCR of ITS2 using
the restriction endonuclease BsIZI (Van Bortel et al., 2000); allele-specific PCR based on SCAR markers
(Kengne et al., 2001) and ITS2 nucleotide variations (Phuc et al., 2003; Garros et al., 2004a).
Mean sequence divergence between An. minimus and An. harrisoni ranged from 2.3 to 3.3% in the Cyt-b
region. Levels of variability of the D3 and COII sequences for these two species were reported previously
(Garros et al., 2005a,b).
FIGURE2.Alignment of the 28S sequences (341 bp) of Anopheles minimus,An. harrisoni and species E of the Mini-
mus Complex.
Holotype female. ADULT: Exactly as the neotype series of An. minimus described by Harbach et al.
(2006), except as follows. Head: Proboscis length about 1.6 mm. Maxillary palpus 1.5 mm long, apical pale
band slightly longer than preapical dark and pale bands of equal length. Thorax: Pleura with 2 prespiracular, 2
prealar, 2 upper mesokatepisternal and 5 upper mesepimeral setae. Wing: Length 2.9 mm; costa with humeral
pale spot in addition to presector pale, sector pale, subcostal and preapical pale spots, sector and accessory
sector pale spots of R fused; distal 0.25 of 1A pale-scaled; pale fringe spots fused at apices of R and R
3 4+5
(total of 6 pale fringe spots). PUPAL EXUVIAE: Habitus and chaetotaxy as described and illustrated for An.
minimus by Harbach et al. (2006), except as follows; number of branches of setae in table 1. Cephalothorax:
Seta 4-CT with 7/5 branches (1–3 in An. minimus) [Harrison (1980) observed 7-10 branches in specimens
from Thailand that may have included An. harrisoni]1; 8-CT forked on one side (single in An. minimus).
Trumpet: Length 0.35 mm, meatus 0.10 mm, pinna 0.35 mm. Abdomen: Length 2.33 mm. Seta 5-I with 1/2
branches (2–4 in An. minimus); 7-I with 6/7 branches (4–6 in An. minimus) [3–7 branches in Thai specimens];
9-I with 6/8 branches (2–5 in An. minimus); 0-IV with 5/4 branches (2–4 in An. minimus) [1–6 branches in
Thai specimens]; 4-IV with 3/5 branches (2,3 in An. minimus) [1–6 branches in Thai specimens]; 8,10,11-II
absent. Genital lobe: Longer, length 0.20 mm. Paddle: Length 0.67 mm, width 0.43 mm, index 1.56; marginal
serrations begin 0.15 from base and end 0.47 from base; refractile index 0.31. LARVAL EXUVIAE (fourth-
instar): Habitus and chaetotaxy as described and illustrated for An. minimus by Harbach et al. (2006), except
as follows; number of branches of setae in table 2. Head: Width 0.55 mm, length 0.59 mm. Seta 7-C with 19/
1. From this point onward, information in square brackets refers to data of Harrison (1980).
FORMAL TAXONOMY OF ANOPHELES MINIMUS Zootaxa 1654 © 2007 Magnolia Press · 45
15 branches (14–19 in An. minimus) [15–20 in Thai specimens]; 8-C with 8/9 branches (4–7 in An. minimus)
[5–10 in Thai specimens]; 8-P with 35/? branches (31–34 in An. minimus) [27–38 in Thai specimens].
Antenna: Length 0.23 mm. Thorax: Mesothorax without pair of submedian notal plates. Seta 8-P with 35/?
branches (31–34 in An. minimus) [27–38 in Thai specimens]; Abdomen: Segments I–VII with distinct subme-
dian accessory tergal plates. Seta 0-III with 3/2 branches (1,2 in An. minimus) [1–3 in Thai specimens]; 1-
III,V with 23/22 and 22/20 branches, respectively (16–22 and 16–21 in An. minimus) [17–25 and 17–22 in
Thai specimens]; 4-I,II with 9/9 and 7/9 branches, respectively (both 4–7 in An. minimus) [4–8 and 5–9 in
Thai specimens]; 5-VI,VIII with 8/9 and 7/7 branches, respectively (9–13 and 4–6 in An. minimus) [9–12 and
5–7 in Thai specimens]; 6,7-I both with ?/34 branches (23–31 and 22–33 in An. minimus) [26–34 and 26–33
in Thai specimens]; 7-II with 36/39 branches (22–33 in An. minimus) [24–36 in Thai specimens]; 7-IV with
10/7 branches (5–7 in An. minimus) [4–8 in Thai specimens]. Pecten plate with 13/12 spines. Saddle length
0.23 mm. Seta 4-X with 4–14 branches (4–13 in An. minimus).
TABLE 1. Number of branches for pupal setae (left/right sides) of the holotype female of Anopheles harrisoni. Question
marks indicate missing setae.
Setae Cephalothorax Abdominal segments Paddle
no. CT I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX P
0 – – 1/1 3/? 5/4 3/2 1/2 1/1 1/1 – –
1 4/3 nc 24/30 18/21 13/12 2/1 1/1 1/1 – 3/4 1/1
2 2/3 5/6 5/6 9/7 9/9 5/7 6/6 5/4 – – 5/?
3 5/6 2/2 7/7 6/6 7/7 1/2 1/1 3/1 – – –
4 7/5 8/7 6/5 5/3 3/5 4/4 1/1 1/1 3/2 – –
5 8/6 1/2 6/6 10/9 9/9 6/5 6/6 4/5 – – –
6 4/6 2/2 1/1 ?/6 4/5 3/3 2/1 1/2 – – –
7 2/2 6/7 5/4 3/4 4/3 5/5 1/1 1/1 – – –
8 1/2 – – 4/4 3/? 2/1 2/2 3/3 – – –
9 3/4 6/8 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 8/9 – –
10 2/2 – – 3/3 2/1 1/1 2/1 3/2 – – –
11 5/4 – – 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 2/1 – – –
12 5/3 – – – – – – – – – –
14 – – – 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1 – –
nc = not counted.
Systematics. Anopheles harrisoni, like An. minimus, is very similar to three other species of the
Myzomyia Series that occur within its range of distribution in the Oriental Region, i.e. An. aconitus,An. fluvi-
atilis James and An. varuna (see e.g. Van Bortel et al., 2001). As pointed out by Harrison (1980), no morpho-
logical characters are completely reliable for distinguishing the adults of these species. Furthermore, the
adults of An. pampanai are also often misidentified as An. minimus, and hence An. harrisoni, because the dis-
tinguishing features of the wings are not easily discerned. Consequently, adults of An. harrisoni (as well as
those of other members of the Minimus Complex), cannot be distinguished from the adults of these species
with certainty without associated larval and pupal exuviae. The morphological characters in the identification
keys of Harrison (1980) and Rattanarithikul et al. (2006) that distinguish An. minimus from the closely related
species also distinguish An. harrisoni from those species. However, because of the uncertainties associated
with morphological differentiation, the various types of molecular assays developed by Sharpe et al. (1999),
Van Bortel et al. (2000), Kengne et al. (2001), Phuc et al. (2003) and Garros et al. (2004a,b) should be used
for the unequivocal identification of An. harrisoni (= their An. minimus species C).
46 · Zootaxa 1654 © 2007 Magnolia Press HARBACH ET AL.
FIGURE 3. Alignment of the ITS2 sequences (470 bp) of Anopheles minimus,An. harrisoni and species E of the Mini-
mus Complex.
TABLE 2. Number of branches for larval setae (left/right sides) of the holotype female of Anopheles harrisoni. Question
marks indicate missing setae or setae with damaged or obscured branches.
Setae Head Thorax Abdominal segments
no. C P M T I II III IV V VI VII VIII X
0 1/1 1/1 – – – 1/1 3/2 3/3 3/2 2/2 2/2 2/2 –
1 1/1 22/22 31/33 3/2 16/14 18/20 23/22 21/22 22/20 20/19 16/17 2/2 1/1
2 1/1 14/16 2/1 1/1 5/7 5/5 3/3 1/1 1/1 1/1 3/3 10/11 20/20
3 1/1 1/1 1/1 15/14 1/1 1/1 1/1 3/3 1/1 1/1 3/3 ?/10 11/8
4 1/1 12/13 5/? 4/4 9/9 7/9 5/5 4/5 2/2 1/1 ?/1 4/4 4–14*
5 15/14 30/29 1/1 ?/33 5/5 6/4 6/5 6/4 8/? 8/9 ?/10 7/7 –
6 15/15 1/1 3/3 5/4 ?/34 26/28 16/18 3/3 3/3 3/3 4/3 – –
7 19/15 26/25 3/4 27/34 ?/34 36/39 7/8 10/7 7/7 5/5 ?/5 1-S, 9/9
8 8/9 35/? 19/26 32/? – 3/3 2/3 3/3 2/3 3/3 6/8 2-S, 8/?
9 6/7 12/? 1/1 6/5 6/6 6/9 6/7 7/7 7/8 9/6 9/9 6-S, 3/3
10 3/3 1/1 1/1 1/1 5/5 3/3 3/2 3/3 3/3 3/3 6/4 7-S, 1/2
11 44/? 3/? 1/1 1/1 4/5 2/4 4/3 4/3 4/4 4/4 3/3 8-S, 7/?
12 4/4 1/1 2/2 3/? 4/5 5/4 4/3 2/4 2/4 4/2 ?/2 9-S, 5/5
13 6/? 6/7 6/8 4/3 7/9 12/10 5/5 5/5 5/5 11/9 4/4 – –
14 5/? 5/5 8/9 – – – 1/2 1/1 2/2 2/2 3/2 2 –
15 ?/? – – – – – – – – – – – –
*Range of branches for individual setae (9 pairs).
FORMAL TAXONOMY OF ANOPHELES MINIMUS Zootaxa 1654 © 2007 Magnolia Press · 47
Bionomics. Little specific bionomical information is available for An. harrisoni because this species was
not distinguished from An. minimus during the course of ecological and epidemiological studies conducted
before, and even after, the advent of molecular methods of identification. The trophic behaviour and seasonal-
ity of An. harrisoni (as An. minimus C) has been examined in northern Vietnam and western Thailand
(Rwegoshora et al., 2002; Van Bortel et al., 2004; Trung et al., 2005, Sungvornyothin et al., 2006b) where this
species occurs in sympatry with An. minimus, but its larval ecology and biology are still unknown. Both spe-
cies may inhabit the same larval habitats (Garros et al., 2006). In northern Vietnam (Hoa Binh Province),
adults of An. harrisoni were particularly abundant in October during the dry season (Van Bortel, 2002; Garros
et al., 2006). In western Thailand, a two-year survey showed that populations of the species peaked in April–
June and November–December, which corresponds with the beginning and the end of the rainy season
(Sungvornyothin et al., 2006b). In contrast, an earlier one-year study showed that populations in the same area
of Thailand exhibited peak biting density at the end of the rainy season in October–November and a second,
smaller peak during the latter part of the dry season in January–March (Rwegoshora et al., 2002). The density
of An. harrisoni was exceptionally high at sites in western Thailand (Ban Phu Toei, Sai Yok District, Kancha-
naburi Province) and central Vietnam (Lang Nhot Village, Khanh Phu Commune, Khanh Vinh District, Khanh
Hoa Province) (Rwegoshora et al., 2002; Garros et al., 2005c; Kengluecha et al., 2005; Sungvornyothin et al.,
2006b). Two biting peaks were observed indoors in Thailand, one around 1900 h and another after midnight
(around 0100 h) (Sungvornyothin et al., 2006b). Only the later peak was recorded outdoors. The relative risk
of being bitten before 2200 h was higher for An.harrisoni than for An. minimus, which exhibited peak feeding
activity after 2200 h in Vietnam (Trung et al., 2005).
FIGURE4. Alignment of the COI sequences (524 bp) of Anopheles minimus and An. harrisoni.
Studies of trophic behaviour have shown that Anopheles harrisoni is more zoophilic than anthropophilic,
and is exophagic and exophilic in both northern Vietnam and western Thailand (Rwegoshora et al., 2002; Van
Bortel et al., 2004; Trung et al., 2005; Sungvornyothin et al., 2006b). It will not be surprising if future studies
find that the feeding behaviour of An. harrisoni is as highly variable as that of An. minimus, which is known to
be an opportunist feeder (Van Bortel et al., 2004; Trung et al., 2005). The vectorial status of An. harrisoni has
not been determined, but evidence suggests that it is a major vector of malaria in southern China (Chen et al.,
2002).
48 · Zootaxa 1654 © 2007 Magnolia Press HARBACH ET AL.
TABLE 3. Comparison of members of the Minimus Complex: species, source localities (Pr.: Province, Arch.: Archipel-
ago), GenBank accession numbers and DNA fragments (alignment lengths in parentheses). Sequence data for An. harri-
soni are based on specimens collected at the same locality as the type specimens. Sequences for the 28S/D3, ITS2, COI
and COII loci were published previously by Garros et al. (2005a,b). Cyt-b sequences were obtained in the present study.
The sequences marked with an asterisk (*) were obtained from GenBank. na = not available.
Species Localities Latitude/longitude Accession no.
28S/D3 ITS2 COI COII Cyt-b
(341 bp) (470 bp) (524 bp) (631 bp) (711 bp)
An. harrisoni Vietnam, Hoa Binh Pr., 20°38’12” N/ AY259159 AY255109 AY423057 AY486111 EU071695–7
Khoi Village 105°10’2”E
An. minimus (See above) (See above) AY259158 AY255108 AY423058 AY486110 EU071692–4
An. minimus E Japan, Ryukyu Arch., 24°26’ N/ AJ512721* AB088378* na AJ512739* na
Ishigaki Island 124°11’ E
FIGURE 5. Alignment of the COII sequences (631 bp) of Anopheles minimus,An. harrisoni and species E of the Mini-
mus Complex.
Distribution. Current data show that An. minimus is the predominant species of the Minimus Complex in
the Oriental Region. It is recorded from northeastern India to eastern China (Taiwan) and southward from
Sichuan Province of China through Laos, Thailand, Vietnam and Cambodia (Subbarao, 1998; Van Bortel et
al., 1999, 2000; Kengne et al., 2001; Chen et al., 2002; Somboon et al., 2005b). In comparison, available
records indicate that An. harrisoni has a smaller, patchy distribution in Southeast Asia. Populations have been
FORMAL TAXONOMY OF ANOPHELES MINIMUS Zootaxa 1654 © 2007 Magnolia Press · 49
FIGURE 6. Alignment of the Cyt-b sequences (711 bp) of Anopheles minimus and An. harrisoni.
50 · Zootaxa 1654 © 2007 Magnolia Press HARBACH ET AL.
